Summary: This set of proposals would result in there being two SACC English
names for widespread species with a range in both the US and Europe/UK/Asia
where entrenched and confusing usage exists for both. It also first gives a
chance to consider adopting an old world name that has not previously been
subject to a proposal.

Proposal 373: Change vernacular names of Stercorariuspomarinus,
parasiticus and longicaudus from "Jaeger" to
"Skua" (and "Parasitic" to "Arctic" for parasiticus)

Proposal 374A: Stercorarius pomarinus, parasiticus and longicaudus:
Add alternative vernacular name "Skua" to existing English name

Discussion re Proposal 373: A choice between Moorhen and Gallinule was the
subject of Proposal 335. A choice between Sand Martin and Bank Swallow was the
subject of Proposal 46. A one-sided debate on the brilliance of the North American
name (that SACC committee members are most familiar with) and the faults of the
BOU name ensued in each case. I have added some comments at the end of each of
those proposals disputing some of the committee members' assertions and also
setting out some reasons why the BOU name is not so bad but do not propose to
repeat those comments here.

This Skua proposal is made for the sake of completeness, but
recommended for rejection and with no expectation of any success. Both names
"Jaeger" and "Skua" have a great deal of historical
momentum on different sides of the Atlantic. As a pre-emptor to assertions by
committee meetings of why the name "Jaeger" is so fantastic, it is of
note that all these birds are now regarded as Stercorarius, so having two
"generic" English names for the group is somewhat splitting hairs.
Having said that, the only relevant consideration is that there are two
entrenched names in different major English speaking birding cultures. As all
committee members voting on English names are North Americans, and given that
the IOC also followed the AOU's approach, I look forward to unanimous rejection
of this proposal. However, can I please encourage decorum on the rationale for
doing so? The point is only raised for completeness.

Discussion re Proposal YYY: It is appropriate for AOU's NACC to adopt,
encourage and advocate prevailing U.S. vernacular names. However, for South
America, the all-American SACC committee presides over a predominantly
non-English speaking region where Europeans and (perhaps to a lesser extent)
Asians and Africans more familiar with the alternate names enjoy birding and
ornithological study in the same way that North Americans do. (I'm not aware if
there are a third set of alternative Falklands, British Guianan, Belizean or
Lesser Antillean names for any South American birds, but that would be a
separate matter and proposal.) It would therefore be appropriate to recognise
the existence of two entrenched names for South America in the few cases where
there is genuine irreconcilability.

Recognition of the existence of two entrenched names is a
sensible approach for a region outside of the AOU's 'home' territory. We
adopted the approach of recognising two entrenched English names in the 2008
Colombian checklist, in one of very few deviations from SACC taxonomy and
vernacular nomenclature. Several major field guides covering the Neotropics,
many of them authored by North Americans, also adopt this approach.

There are other UK/English differences in more mundane or
minor matters such as spelling, hyphenation, whether Hydrobatidae are
Storm-Petrels or just Petrels, Great (White) Egret and usage of inane
"Common", "Northern" or "Eurasian" modifiers.
Also, the two proposals on Whitestarts appeared to have had some nationalistic
undertones. I have also excluded (American) Black Vulture from this proposal -
as the considerations relevant to that name were considered in Proposal 259 and
are somewhat distinct. None of the examples mentioned in this paragraph have
the capability to confuse European birders and ornithologists in their first
trips to the Americas, or to infuriate them if required to adopt such names in
a scientific publication, in the way that the names subject to this proposal
all do.

This proposal clearly involves different considerations from
English name debates where one chooses between two modifiers in cases where a
recent improved name has been proposed. I am not advocating that SACC should
adopt two names in such instances. South American names and South American birding
are at a more embryonic stage than the names subject to this proposal. It is
therefore right for SACC (and other checklist authorities) to plump for a name
and for the community to self-enforce stability around that chosen name in such
cases. However, there is so much history behind the three names subject to this
proposal that such an approach is likely never going to be capable of being
enforced.

Recommendation: In conclusion, the SACC must choose whether its policy is
to roll out North American vernacular names to South America or to acknowledge
the existence of two entrenched names in neutral territory. I would recommend a
"NO" vote on Proposal 373 (Change all remaining Jaegers to Skuas) and
a "YES" vote on Proposal 374 (Recognise two names for controversies)
- but am an optimist.

373:
"NO, for reasons stated in the proposal. Even though they are currently
classified as congeners, we have numerous cases of different "last"
names within a genus, from widespread genera such as Anas and Calidris
to regionally endemic genera such as Coeligena."

374:
"NO. Adding alternative names is a slippery slope. More broadly, the need
for adding a second name so as to not "confuse birders" because
species have different names in different regions, the rallying cry for English
name globalizers, is incredibly weak. Claims that regional differences in
English names are somehow an impediment to ornithology are without substance.
Birders and ornithologists have been observing and studying skuas and jaegers,
for example, for more than a century without any actual slowdown that I am
aware of due to the name differences. In fact, many birders enjoy and
appreciate the name differences as colorful cultural differences without
letting it detract from their birding experience or their ability to identify
species correctly. That a British birder would somehow be bamboozled by their
Sand Martin being known as Bank Swallow when they crossed hemispheres is really
quite silly. More generally, that people are incapacitated by having to know
two or more names for the same thing is plainly false, as vividly documented by
none other than US Postal Service personnel, who somehow manage to send my
letters to the correct country whether I use "Britain", "Great
Britain," or "United Kingdom." But returning to the issue at hand
... the premise that having to know multiple vernacular names is actually
harmful requires documentation."

Comments
from Zimmer:

374.
"NO. I think we should have a standardized name and stick with it, rather
than presenting alternative names for some species but not others."

Comments
from Stiles:

373.
"NO. Here, I agree with Van - I see no problem with a few transatlantic
differences in English names, especially well-established ones and when a genus
includes some rather different-looking species, I see no problem with different
English names either."

374.
"NO. Given that the names are well entrenched on their respective soils,
IÕd say let them be do we want to confuse half of the people all of the time or
half of the time? In transatlantic terms, such a waffle does nobody much
good."

Comments
from Jaramillo:

373.
ÒNO Ð too well entrenched, and there really is no problem understanding each
other across the pond. I often work with European birders on pelagic trips --
there is no issue of confusion here at all.Ó

374.
ÒNO Ð alternative names are problematic as you can always dig up alternative
names, therefore you can never give even treatment. Also it ends up being
confusing, making the list look cluttered, and eventually decreasing
usability.Ó